Dear colleagues,  

I recently joined this list and have been catching up on the thread of discussion.  After having read some of the recent postings, I'd just like to make a plea for all of us to remember that we are, after all, all lovers of Renaissance literature and culture, and that we therefore owe it to one another to be as patient, courteous, supportive, and receptive as we can possibly be.  Part of what causes so many discussions among English academics these days to disintegrate into vituperation is that our field has no single set of generally accepted methodological standards.  I think that such disintegration is both sad and unnecessary.  If, instead of categorically dismissing one another's intellectual offerings because of methodological differences, we actually suspended our disbelief from time to time and listened, all our work would be enriched.  Personally, I *am* convinced--by much research, reading, and teaching---that the rhetoric of Renaissance humanism (and the "figures" it describes) is one (although by no means the only) important inscription of Renaissance thinking about sexuality and the body.  I am also convinced that the symbolic inscriptions we can find in Renaissance rhetoric resonate in deployments of "figures" in early modern poetry (and especially in pastoral). These concerns lead me, when thinking about Spenser, to focus on his early work, of course, and to expect that my focus on the pastoral Spenser and the (homo)sexuality with which he is preoccupied (Hobbinol and Colin) will not be dismissed as "junvenile" simply because it is not "epic" in focus.  It also leads me to expect that my familiarity with the categories of Renaissance rhetoric will not be dismissed as "imprecise" or "dilettantish" simply because it is *informed* by classicism and not a direct reflection or repetition of it. I strive very hard to show the same sort of respect for my colleagues that I expect they will show to me.  Though many Renaissance critics---cultural materialists, new historicists, biographers, humanists---have 
that I would never adopt as my own, I try my hardest to remain open to whatever insights their chosen methods are able to supply or whatever intriguing questions they are able to pose.  It is unfortunately true that for some time in Renaissance studies there *has* been a sort of methodological hegemony that has not always proven itself receptive towards people (like Dr. Sharon-Zisser) who come up with new (and, I think, exciting) ways of responding to Renaissance literature, and that lack of openness has, of course, produced frustration.  But I would just like to remind all of us that the best scholarship *and* teaching is eclectic, and that what is ultimately most important is that we manage to communicate some of our passion for Renaissance literature to students who are being brought up in a world determined to forget history.  We can best achieve that goal if we interact with one another as lovers of literature, rather than as militants fighting in the name of disparate (and ultimately only ever strategically useful) methodologies.  

Best to all, 
Dr. Stephen Whitworth
Assistant Professor of English 
Bloomsburg University
Bloomsburg, PA  17815   



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%